Friday, July 18, 2008

I'm Batman

Well or at least I kind of feel like I am. It's almost an enabling sense of power I have having been one of the early one's to see the midnight showing of The Dark Knight. So I have been having about a bizillion people ask me what I thought, so I submit for you, my imaginary reading public, my review of Batman (of course maybe some of my friends might actually read this blog post because I'm not going to tell everybody and their grandfather what I thought of the movie, just reference them to this).

Ok so for those of you who are ADHD and can't stand to read my in depth blog analysis or are concerned that I might some how ruin the movie for you, I'll give you a quick one over on my quick impressions of it. It's an amazing movie. I can't see hardly anybody not enjoying it, although portions of it are certainly not for the faint of heart. I did really appreciate the fact that while it does deal with some rather gruesome, adult, mutilations it didn't really show any of that and you still very much got the point. I think my conversation with my roommate Matt this morning pretty much sums it up as far as my outlook on the movie.

Matt: "So how many stars would you give it?"
Me: "Out of how many?"
Matt: "Ummmm, 7. No, 100. Lets do it like Rotten Tomatoes."
Me: "That's pretty hard to say because it was such a movie that I really need to see it again to fully be able to rate it."
Matt: "Yeah, like you need to resee it to fully appreciate and grasp everything about it?"
Me: "No, just there's certain things that I would have to review to see just how great it is or may not be. But on as a whole, I'd probably give it a 92."
Matt: "Wow, that good, huh?"
Me: "It's probably now a top 5 movie for me."

So there you have it, that's the abbreviated version. And if you're interested in more of what I have to say, please do read on, I'd love to hear from those of you who have viewed it and get comments as well. I'm going to do my best not to put any spoilers in there and I'm pretty confident I won't. If you read it and feel like I spoiled something for you, then by all means I'm sorry. That being said, if you're that concerned about having something spoiled for you, don't read the rest of this blog please. But if you're interested in my critical analysis of the movie and what to expect, I give you my in depth analysis of The Dark Knight.

Basically I give mad props to Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan Nolan. Their vision of what this movie could be is phenomenal. I've seen nothing like it. To be able to have the vision and ideas that created this is incredible. Now I don't know completely where the founding for all of this came, so I guess I should also give props to David S. Goyer who is credited as writing the story along with Christopher Nolan. And what exactly is the crux that this story rides upon? The vision that is The Joker. Now I must say The Joker is a bit different of a character than I've typically envisioned or seen him played as. He obviously would be an incredibly deranged individual and I think Jack Nicholson definitely did that in the Tim Burton Batman. And maybe Nicholson's Joker has just been entrenched in my mind. I'd definitely say Nicholson reminded me more of what The Joker was like in the cartoon. The Joker that they brought to life in Ledger is more like Osama Bin Laden meets a serial killer. It's down right disturbing and amazingly maniacal. In other words, the overall vision of what this movie is and the plot is hard to beat.

As far as characters, this is top notch as well. Obviously this was largely a repeat cast. Christian Bale returns as Batman. And of course the job he does is yet again fantastic. He plays the dual role of Bruce Wayne and Batman wonderfully. So often much of the real acting ability is found in his character Bruce rather than as the great Dark Knight. Bruce allows him to express his emotion and we see the public veil, or "mask" as described in the first movie, he wears for much of his public persona. Now, I do still have two complaints that arose originally in the first movie that are still displayed here. First, I think Bruce Wayne is portrayed too much as a playboy rather than a mature socialite. I guess there may be some argument that he is still developing into the grandiose public figure that Wayne eventually becomes, so I can live with it. Certainly we see a great maturing of Wayne in this roll not only since the first movie, but also as the movie progresses. He starts understanding more of his role in the world and how the Batman fits in as well. Second, the return of the "Batman voice." Look I understand realistically he's a guy who wants to hide his identity and such so it makes logical sense that he would somewhat hide his voice, plus there's the fact that he wants to sound rough and tough, but my goodness does this sound stupid! I was able to deal with it a lot better in this movie than in the first, but it really just still sounds rather ridiculous and I wish they'd give it up or figure out something better. I guess it beats Halle Berry in the first X-Men movie. All I have to say is I don't know where that accent came from, but it certainly wasn't Africa. Overall though, the acting by Bale is superb and the creation of the character that is Batman and Wayne is top notch.

Now for the Joker. Now a lot of what I have to say about him I mentioned earlier. He is what makes the story more than anything else. He's cunning, maniacal, disturbing, and brilliant. Now I'm going to say something that I'm sure is going to upset many, but I feel rather strongly about. I don't feel like this was a brilliant performance for Ledger and so he definitely does not deserve the Oscar that he most assuredly will receive. Don't get me wrong, I by no means think it was a bad performance. I just don't know that it was anything especially over the top and unique mostly because I feel like the real genius of the Joker was found more in the script and the crazy actions he takes. I had a friend mention all of the fine little twitches or licking of lips that he does, but frankly that just didn't add much to the character for me. It was the genius plans, lines, and insane actions that really made him who he was for me and not the little fine points. Which brings up another thing I loved about the Joker: he was an amazing foil against Batman. The only thing I can even compare that to is Shakespeare's The First Part of King Henry IV in the comparison between Prince Hal and Hotspur. The Joker's motivation is completely driven by the existence of the Batman and his only motivation is to go step for step against the Batman. Without the Batman, the Joker recognizes he has no need for existence and thus the Batman really completes him. It's phenomenal the way this is drawn into the script and the profound truths spoken by the Joker relative to this concept. This is truly a magnificent character that is so amazingly unique to any movie I've ever seen. It's a shame Ledger is no longer alive because it would be fascinating to see a repeat performance in a later movie, even though that maybe would be unlikely.

Michael Caine returns with his role as the loyal butler Alfred. I don't know that I have much to say here. Michael Caine is a brilliant, versatile actor and so of course he comes through with another great performance. He still has his quick little one liners that have the sharp wit we're used to from the first movie and he brings back a lot of the great ability he demonstrated then.

Rachel Dawes role was taken over by Maggie Gyllenhaal. If there is one real weakness to the movie, I would say it is found here in Gyllenhaal. I didn't feel like she did a good job with the roll. She is a character so devoid of emotion and feeling it was really rather pathetic. How could this character that is supposed to have such a great love for Bruce be so stoic at almost all times? Also, Gyllenhaal looked awful. I by no means intend to discount her beauty or anything of the sort, but throughout the movie she seemed to lack any sort of attractiveness and she looked like she hadn't slept in weeks. She frankly just did not look very flattering at all. I don't find Katie Holmes to be a particularly attractive woman, but at least I can say as Rachel Dawes she looked quite lovely. I understand the ability of makeup artists and such and it just surprises me that they made (or maybe allowed) Gyllenhaal to look so grisly rather than making her out to be an absolutely beautiful woman.

Gary Oldman returns for his role as Lt. James Gordon. I really have to give Oldman props. They made Gordon a much more major character in this movie and I feel like he really comes through in his performance. We see a bit more of the real ability he has as Gordon shows a rather varied amount of emotion and he's displayed as a bit more intelligent and torn character than he was in the first. In the first movie, he was almost a nuisance and didn't seem to add a ton to the movie. However, he is a quite useful ally in Batman's war on crime in this movie and just kind of a clever character in general.

Morgan Freeman also returns as Lucius Fox. As far as this, I almost think it's kind of like Michael Caine. Morgan Freeman is a phenomenal actor. I don't think much beats his role in The Shawshank Redemption which certainly shows off much of his ability. Fox has a bit more of a role in this movie than the last, but really I don't know that we see much of anything too different from the last movie. Freeman does a great job and the character has a nice return.

Finally, there is Harvey Dent played by Aaron Eckhart. I really think Eckhart stole the show as far as a supporting character. You see such a wide scale of emotion and such an interesting character. Also, as far as many of the "heros" go in the movie, Dent has some of the greatest lines to share. Dent is a fantastic character that represents so much of the good and truth that Batman seeks to bring about in Gotham. Eckhart does a fantastic job of making you really believe the passion that drives Dent to clean up the streets and make Gotham a better place. I suppose to save any sort of spoiler I won't delve into the torn character that Dent really is, but certainly it is amazing how Eckhart is able to show some of that dark side that lies deep inside Dent.

The cinematography is phenomenal. Nolan has such a wonderful ability with the camera and the lighting to really see into the souls of the individuals he films and immerse you in the storyline and action. Also, it really is such a beautiful cinematic experience. I wish I could explain more about this, but frankly I'm not even remotely an expert on this kind of thing and I think this is something you learn to notice and appreciate with additional viewings.

So yes, overall, a phenomenal movie. I think one of the most interesting things about the movie overall was its sharing of profound truths. Many of the superhero/comic book movies have much to share as far as the profound truths shared with or by the hero. That is one of the biggest reasons I love the Spiderman movies, they probably set the standard as far as that and I don't know that anyone else has quite matched it. I must say that was one of the strongest things I liked about Batman Begins was the sharing of those great, profound, inspirational truths. Dark Knight definitely returns the salvo as far as that goes, but certainly with a dark twist. I really didn't find hardly any inspirational, profound truths that were shared in this movie, however, that's not to say it was devoid of those profound truths. On the contrary, the villians seemed to share the majority of those profound truths, however, they were obviously a lot more dark, cynical, and sinspirational. And I think that really captures so much of what this movie is comparatively. While Dark Knight has often been a title applied to Batman, it really is such an apt name for this movie due to its comparatively dark nature complexities. If you're looking for a happy joyful movie, this movie is certainly not it. However, there is enough of a hope given through the character that is Batman and the way he rallies much of the city so as to give it that finalistic happy ending that really doesn't leave you feeling the emptiness and depravity that is found in the core of the many villains.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

News For July 16, 2008

So I've really been neglecting my blog and haven't done much of anything in for forever, so I figured I'd try to get back into it. I figured there was no better place to start as far as that than a return to my Drudgieness. Without further ado, here's my interesting news picks for July 16th:

The city of Denver seeks to ameliorate their homeless problem by sending them to the movies. Too bad I don't think they had quite the same idea the mayor of Chattanooga did when The Pursuit of Happyness was released.

Democrats seek censorship in the House of Representatives and the Republicans are pro-Freedom of Speech? Only in the bizarre blogosphere.

Hate spam? This spammer certainly paid for his emails.

Mike Allen's Playbook. Always an interesting read.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund takes their shots at John McCain. -  I don't usually add much personal commentary to most of what I post, but this one I couldn't resist. I couldn't believe the irresponsibility of an add such as this. Frankly, as the video shows, he admits it's something that he doesn't have much of an opinion about. And why should he? Is it really such a tremendous issue that a candidate for President of the United States of America should be overly concerned about whether or not insurance companies pick up the tab on birth control? I think the President and the Federal Government has bigger issues to deal with than something as insignificant as this. Really this seems like some anti-McCain people taking their cheap shots at him to keep him out of the White House (and no, that is not me saying I endorse John McCain).

Schism amongst the Anglicans over gay clergy.

Obama proclaims his presidency will protect the nation against the dangers of "fighting the last war".  -  This one I couldn't help but resist speaking a little bit about as well. Frankly, the idea of any major nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons threat is so tremendously remote that it is not something a president needs to be overly focused on. The military, intelligence agencies, and FBI all already go to great lengths to prevent this kind of thing (which is highly unlikely to occur anyway) so why do we need the President to worry about it too? I don't think he has any decisions that are crucial to be made concerning this. Obviously it's something to be aware of and to try to prevent, but what does Obama hope to do? He acts like he's in such a hurry to get our troops home I can't picture him using military action to prevent anything like this. So what, is he going to beg them not to use these kinds of weapons against us? The fact of the matter is, the people who are crazy enough to use this kind of stuff won't get this kind of stuff and the people who have this kind of stuff aren't crazy enough to use it on the U.S., so relax. It will be okay.

Sad murder-suicide in Missouri.

The best of the best when it comes to diets.

A pretty smart 11 year old fights speeders.

Blogs
I haven't posted anybody's blogs on here before, but I had some interesting posts from some of my friends that I thought I'd share (also some humorous ones). I hope you enjoy.

opinuendo* by Jack Jared Waters
Ghost Ride the Whip -  I wasn't familiar with this until I read this post and boy was I pleased I did. It's hysterical and I hope you enjoy.

Space Cadet Glow by Jack Jared Waters and his friend Jenn
Kind of a goofy post about Phantom Texts. I thought it was entertaining and something I could relate to.

Satire Report by "Michael Powers" (that's actually a pseudonym)
Interesting post on Obama's inflammatory comments about his grandmother. There has been some excellent discussion in the comments section relative to it as well, although I feel like a lot of it turned into more of a case of attacking and getting off the topic at hand. But still informative and worth the read.

Exploration of the ideas of power and confidence.

Funny post about Peter Pan.

Anyway, feel free to post comments about any of this or just tell me what you enjoyed.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

News for May 1, 2008

Ever wonder what happens to your knife confiscated at the airport?

A traitor amongst Hillary

Chinese Navy presents a growing threat - As a side note, check out this awful quote from Christian Le Miere, editor of Jane's Intelligence Review, "This is a challenge to any hegemonic power, particularly the US which still remains dominant in the region." A hegemon is considered the dominant power in a region. Now it is possible to have a local hegemon and a global hegemon, but two true hegemons cannot exist over one region because that is a change in the polarity of the system so they no longer are a true hegemon. Really it deals with having a preponderance of power, so someone who is a hegemon is a cut above the rest. So the quote is insane because it deals with multiple hegemons and it suggests "particuarly the US" which means it casts some doubt on whether or not the US is in fact the hegemon globally but still seeming to imply it is. It's insanity.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

News for April 30, 2008

Politico
Mike Allen's Playbook: Economic problems abound, Obama owns the superdelegates and Meet the Press, and an HBO movie about the 2000 Presidential Election entitled Recount.

Democrats to the rescue?: Democrats are taking on the oil crisis in a manner that's definitely no farce, but when's the last time a Democrat in Congress did anything of any real value?

Yahoo News
Economic Lesson: Hillary and McCain listen up, lower gas taxes ≠ lower gas prices.

News flash Israel: Contrary to popular belief, the press is not a terrorist organization.


Drug father goes on his own trip

The torch comes in as hope goes out

The people of Lesbos take on the lesbians

When I Grow Up I Wanna Be Matt Drudge (Okay, maybe not, but you'll see)

So I often like to post interesting news reports as my Facebook status because I think it's useful to share information such as news and that was a great way to do it. But that really limited me a lot with the information I could share and also it was mostly a lazy way of presenting such information, so instead I'm going to start using my blog as a news sharing resource. I'll still write my own blog articles, but this is going to become my primary source. I guess I can be somewhat like one of my heros, Matt Drudge (sans the Fedora): 
But overall, I really wish to inform and still have some fun. I can't deny I may show my bias in some of the commentary I give related to it, but mostly that will probably be more of a humorous thing rather than a true motivation to give some spin. Mostly I put the articles up because I want others to be informed, I don't want you to take my word on what they say. For that reason I will only give rather quick blurbs about most of them. Occasionally I may post some more in depth commentary, but that will be a little more rare most of the time.

For those who are curious about how I get my information, I use Matt Drudge's website and RSS Feeds. My current list of feeds are: The New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, Politico Top Stories, and varied sports RSS feeds (I doubt I'm likely to post those articles as often because I'm not sure that's going to facilitate discussion as much, but some may pop in on occasion). If you have any other suggestions on other RSS feeds you think would be worth my while please recommend them and I will check them out. Also, I'm looking for a clever name for my blog so suggestions for that would be great as well!

My intent behind this all is to inform and create discussion. So please publish comments whether it be directly on my blog (the preferred method) or even in my Facebook notes imported from my blog. I want to hear what you have to say and I'd love to talk to you about it. Also, if you find any interesting news bits that you think I might be interested in post em on my blog, Facebook them to me (on my wall, comment on notes, or my inbox), or email them to me. Any other input is also valuable, so feel free to send that info my way as well.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Expectations

So I was walking home from school today with a friend and we were having kind of an interesting conversation. It was about the idea of friends. We talked about how sometimes with some people, you try so hard to be friends with them because it seems like everything is great between you when you're around each other, but often times you have to do all the work as far as being a friend. Friendship can be a rather difficult thing. We wish that we all could just be great friends all of the time. But that just doesn't always happen. There's so many factors to take in. Time is really one of the biggest one. Sure, we've always got plenty of time for lots of things and lots of people. But at some point we do decide who or what is worth more of our time and we end up removing other things or people from that time in response. However, I think the biggest guiding factor of friendship is like any other relationship, it really boils down to the idea of expectation.

We form expectations for EVERYTHING in life. They can be really simple and stupid, like we expect that when we play with a bouncy ball, it will bounce. Or we might form more complex expectations based off of theories we have formed or what not. So in the case of people, our expectations fall a bit more along the lines of the latter. Of course expectations when it comes to people are a bit different. The examples I spoke about are more of an expectation based off of an action reaction kind of thing. However, our relationships with others is really a lot more about preference. We find traits in others that we prefer and have expectations relative to that. I think for a large part our expectations of others is rather similar from person to person. Now a lot of what guides our expectations of others is dependent upon what sort of relationship we have with others.

Obviously our expectations of others is severely diminished in the case of individuals that are simple acquaintances at best. I think we typically have an expectation of at least some civility when we meet random people on the streets, but that expectation is so low that it doesn't usually bother us too much if these people don't quite meet that expectation. But this progresses further and further as we develop a stronger relationship. In the case of friendship, this is kind of an interesting subject. With friendship, there really are so many different levels. We all have people that we would consider friends, but maybe we don't ever talk to them outside of a class or work or something like that. I think there's an expectation of being friendly, but not really an expectation of going out of our way to be a friend. Of course everybody's expectations of their friends can differ. I think there's two major problems we run into with all of this. One, people aren't always going to meet our expectations. Maybe our expectations are too high, or maybe their expectations are not quite the same as ours, or maybe they just don't do a great job of thinking outside of their own person and seeing how their actions would violate their own expectations. Needless to say, a problem is created because of a difference in expectation. Two, we can misperceive our relationship with this individual, which in turn creates a different expectation level. This really can go both ways. We might perceive that they are better friends with us than we are with them or vice versa. Either way, if the level of our perceived friendship doesn't match up, we are not likely to have the same expectations and somebody is likely to get hurt.

Now to complicate matters even further, picture all of this mess in a romantic relationship. The stakes are higher in the game of love and we've raised the level of expectation and the level of the relationship in general. It seems like to me, one of the absolute biggest problems in a romantic relationship is that people are not on the same level as far as what their relationship is. That's really kind of a funny idea because it is hard to really see different levels as far as a romantic relationship is concerned other than maybe the extremes, but they are certainly there. So I guess there lies another problem, it's hard to even perceive what these levels are. Also, you've brought even more expectations to the table because this person is so much more a part of your life than just a friend. Expectations to everyday living become a lot more important than they are with your buddies you just hang out with on the weekend. It all becomes so complex that it really is amazing that anybody can work it out.

A friend of mine once related the idea of a romantic relationship being kind of like a game of tug of war. What we tug on is trust and we're trying to get more trust out of the other person. I think this trust is relative to our expectations. We yank thinking that as we pull harder we can trust them more because they will meet our expectations more fully and this is a constant cycle. Now the problem is if we give up too much of that trust, they win the game and we get burned. It's a delicate balance. The trust must have a balance and so must the expectations. Obviously the balance isn't always going to be perfect, but if we let it go too far one way or the other, we lose the game.

The funny thing about all of this is in my life I don't know if this is just a lesson that I haven't really understood until recently or if I have done a lot better with meeting my expectations more than one would expect. As far as friendships, I think I do a pretty good job of feeling out what the friendship is and I don't typically feel too burned. I know I've had my times where I thought my friendship was something more than what it was, but typically it didn't take too much to realize that this was a misperception and I wasn't hurt hardly at all by it. Romantic relationships are somewhat of a different story. I've lost that game of trust a few too many times. But as far as a lot of it works, I don't know that it was too drastic of a problem as far as our expectations matching up. I can think of an instance in which my expectations were not being met in the least and so I had to let go because it was too difficult for me to maintain something like that. That really can be a hard and unfair place to put someone in, so it's something we definitely need to look out for when we might find ourselves in those kinds of circumstances.

Just be careful how you relate to other people's expectations. By no means does that mean we always have to bend to their expectations. Sometimes we set up faulty expectations so we do them no favor by maintaining improper expectations. But we should be aware of such things and realize that just because their expectations don't match ours doesn't make them wrong. I think the only wrong we commit as far as this is when we too blatantly disregard the expectations and in turn the feelings of others so as to be quite crushing to them. I know very few people anxiously pursue a course meant to hurt others, so that's why we need to be sensitive of others in every way possible. We need to be sensitive to those expectations, and if things be right for us, if the relationship (friendly or romantic) is what we want, be willing to help meet their expectations as much as possible.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Honesty vs. Openness

Honesty is really a funny thing. Certainly we hope to be completely honest and upright in our dealings with others, but undeniably that's pretty difficult. Sometimes there's what seems to be good reason to keep things to ourselves or to spin the truth a little bit or tell a little fib. I suppose that can be somewhat of a grey area, at least it seems like it. It seems harmless enough that it's hard to tell if it's necessarily wrong. Plus there's the issue of whether or not a lie might actually be in somebody's best interest. Withholding information from someone undeniably might make things better for them, in the short run at least. Ignorance really can be bliss.

I guess that's where things are really funny for me. One of my best friends told me that I "tell it like it is." I'm undeniably very opinionated. With that, I have developed a strong personality and so I'm not afraid to make my thoughts known. Unfortunately that does start to remove some of my tact. Now I wouldn't say I'm not a tactful person, but I could be a little more thoughtful with my honesty sometimes. There's always a better, kinder way to say everything. I guess the danger there is it may not convey the idea quite right and ameliorating any thought will make it seem more light. Sometimes people really do need to understand the actual weight of what your saying. But I must say, I'm sure I venture far past that. If anything I probably would be better off to error to caution and be more tactful. I think I do have a pleasant enough demeanor and am well intentioned enough that most of the time my strong words are taken in the best way possible, but it doesn't necessarily make it okay.

I ran into a similar issue with that recently. I was speaking to a friend and I'm certain I was way too upfront and honest about circumstances. I'd rather not go into all of the messy details because that's really not my place, but frankly I can't deny that I was far too overbearing and quite the jerk for a lot of what I said. I expressed a lot of thoughts and ideas relative to what we were speaking about that didn't need to be brought up and really were harmful. So it was an obvious overstepping of my bounds. So I guess that's the big question, when is it appropriate to be completely open?

This reminds me of the movie Liar, Liar. In case you're not familiar with the premise, Jim Carrey plays a lawyer that lies constantly. His son becomes frustrated with his lying and wishes that his father cannot lie anymore. So his son's wish is granted and Jim Carrey cannot lie anymore. Now the thing that I always picked on about the movie, Carrey's character could not keep his mouth closed. He felt like he had to make comments about anything and everything. It was kind of ridiculous because there were plenty of times he could have said less or kept his mouth shut or whatever else and not gotten himself into the trouble he did. Now I can't deny that that did help to add to the comedic value of the movie, but it did seem a bit ridiculous. Kind of funny though, now I liken myself to that. I'm the person who feels like they need to make ridiculous, needless comments that really are not as kind as they should be. I think that shows me that honesty and openness are not exactly the same thing.

So therein lies the question. How do we reconcile the difference between honesty and openness? I can't deny that sometimes we owe it some people to be open with them. In circumstances with friends we often have this kind of issue. But at the same time, it's not like you should always answer questions like "What do you honestly think about me?" With complete openness. There's a time and a place for that and it does depend on the context of your conversation and your relationship with the individual. But what's better? Where does this line exist of how much openness is right versus just "honesty"? I'm not sure it's lying to not be completely open, but there can be plenty of occasions where that idea can become a little blurry. So we have to figure this out and weigh the circumstances closely in order to come to a good conclusion.

"O be wise; what can I say more?" - Jacob 6:12

P.S. I just found this quote that I had to attach as a final note to this.
"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." - Isaac Newton